If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: C++ vs Java

Hi Tricia,

I've been a programmer for 35 years, and I'm competent in C, C++, COBOL,
BASIC, JAVA, PL/1 and others. Here are some things the other people haven't
mentioned.

As was mentioned, in C and C++ the programmer is responsible for allocating
and freeing memory. That memory is usually accessed with a "pointer," a variable
with a memory address in it. I've heard it said more than once that the vast
majority of bugs in C and C++ have to do with memory allocation and reference
errors. My own experience seems to bear that out. One of your respondents
mentioned that JAVA and C# use garbage collection. That means that the programmer
never allocates or frees memory, and never deals with pointers. I've found
that with JAVA, I no longer produce some of the horrific bugs that I did
with C/C++.

Programming languages have evolved over time, trying (IMHO) to do two things.
1. - create a language that mimics the way the programmer thinks, and 2.
- guide the programmer’s style of design and coding.

#1 was the idea behind the first modern (“third generation”) programming
language, FORTRAN (“FORmula TRANslation). Statements in FORTRAN are algebraic
equations, which mimics the way an engineer thinks. The next major one was
COBOL, which attempted to mimic the way business accountants think: Statements
look like English.

#2 is actually a significant driving force in the evolution of languages,
and often changes the way that programmers think (thus affecting what happens
in #1). Researchers have discovered that style of programming has a significant
impact on the quality of software. There’ve been at least three revolutions
in programming style.

The first happened in the 50s, I think (it was before my time), and was called
“top-down” programming. It meant that you started with the most general concept
(like a payroll system) and you coded functions at that general level (functions
like “produce payroll check”) even before you’ve created the lower level
routines (like “calculate deductions” and “print”). This meant you had to
write dummy programs (called “stubs”) for the lower level routines. This
is sometimes called “functional” programming because it sees the parts of
the software as a set of functions: “do this function, then do that one.”

The second revolution, called “Structured Programming,” hit the software
business pretty hard in the early 70s, and we’ve never been the same. It
was controversial for a while (because people don’t like to give up old habits),
but now it’s so common that the name is not even used anymore. Everyone practices
structured programming, but doesn’t know it. To write an unstructured program,
you need a “goto” statement, which doesn’t even exist in JAVA. I would love
to show you what a “spaghetti” program looks like. If you follow the thread
of execution, it actually looks like a bowl of spaghetti. When the term "spaghetti"
was first used, everyone laughed long and loud. Nobody had to explain it
to us. We all knew that it referred to our own code.

So when we combined Top-Down with Structured, it was like a regime change.
It literally was a new way of looking at the world. The “case” statement
was invented to facilitate structured programming. “Goto,” which once had
been an essential concept, was now an obscene word. Modula-2 was designed
without it, partially out of arrogance of the inventor (“I won’t have any
gotos on my record,” or something like that). We all thought that we had
learned the ultimate programming style, one that would free us from buggy
code and long development schedules. Today, it’s not the ultimate style.
It’s just good programming practice.

The next revolution was Object Oriented. It began with a language called
“Simscript,” which was for writing simulations. Objects are natural in simulation.
If you want to simulate traffic, for example, you want to have objects called
“cars.” Again, we had to completely change the way we viewed the world. Object
orientation, by nature, is contrary to the functional view. In fact, it made
top-down obsolete. With objects, the best way to design is bottom-up: Start
with the detailed stuff, and work your way up to the more general. So it
literally turned the old way of thinking on its head.

(C++ is the object-oriented version of C)

At least two languages were inspired directly by Simscript. The ones I know
are SmallTalk and Eiffel. SmallTalk is the most famous, but Eiffel is still
going strong and has a loyal following. A new version of Eiffel even works
with the .NET framework.

One of your respondents pointed out that you can still write non-object code
in JAVA. That's true, but it misses the point. When you learn to code in
JAVA, you learn to think in terms of objects. And that makes you a product
of the revolution, whether you know it or not.

Well, I’d love to talk all night about this, but it’s time for me to meet
my girlfriend and go to a movie (two important functions). If you have any
questions you can write me at Jma26@Bigfoot.com.

Re: C++ vs Java

<Q>
One of your respondents pointed out that you can still write non-object code
in JAVA. That's true, but it misses the point.
</Q>

No it doesn't miss the point. If you read the previous post you would understand
why I said this.

<Q>
When you learn to code in
JAVA, you learn to think in terms of objects. And that makes you a product
of the revolution, whether you know it or not.
</Q>

Do people really? I wish that were true. Unfortunately, many examples provided
for learning Java are not OO (check out MQ Series documentation). Having
a "main" method, seems to cause most of the problem. The other is that most
still must think GUI ("Web App") and relational database ("database driven").

It seems most Java code produced is not OO. Using Java doesn't produce
OO code. Neither does putting code in objects. People actually have to
think.

"Michael" <jma26@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Tricia,
>
>I've been a programmer for 35 years, and I'm competent in C, C++, COBOL,
>BASIC, JAVA, PL/1 and others. Here are some things the other people haven't
>mentioned.
>
>As was mentioned, in C and C++ the programmer is responsible for allocating
>and freeing memory. That memory is usually accessed with a "pointer," a
variable
>with a memory address in it. I've heard it said more than once that the
vast
>majority of bugs in C and C++ have to do with memory allocation and reference
>errors. My own experience seems to bear that out. One of your respondents
>mentioned that JAVA and C# use garbage collection. That means that the programmer
>never allocates or frees memory, and never deals with pointers. I've found
>that with JAVA, I no longer produce some of the horrific bugs that I did
>with C/C++.
>
>Programming languages have evolved over time, trying (IMHO) to do two things.
>1. - create a language that mimics the way the programmer thinks, and 2.
>- guide the programmer’s style of design and coding.
>
>#1 was the idea behind the first modern (“third generation”) programming
>language, FORTRAN (“FORmula TRANslation). Statements in FORTRAN are algebraic
>equations, which mimics the way an engineer thinks. The next major one was
>COBOL, which attempted to mimic the way business accountants think: Statements
>look like English.
>
>#2 is actually a significant driving force in the evolution of languages,
>and often changes the way that programmers think (thus affecting what happens
>in #1). Researchers have discovered that style of programming has a significant
>impact on the quality of software. There’ve been at least three revolutions
>in programming style.
>
>The first happened in the 50s, I think (it was before my time), and was
called
>“top-down” programming. It meant that you started with the most general
concept
>(like a payroll system) and you coded functions at that general level (functions
>like “produce payroll check”) even before you’ve created the lower level
>routines (like “calculate deductions” and “print”). This meant you had to
>write dummy programs (called “stubs”) for the lower level routines. This
>is sometimes called “functional” programming because it sees the parts of
>the software as a set of functions: “do this function, then do that one.”
>
>
>The second revolution, called “Structured Programming,” hit the software
>business pretty hard in the early 70s, and we’ve never been the same. It
>was controversial for a while (because people don’t like to give up old
habits),
>but now it’s so common that the name is not even used anymore. Everyone
practices
>structured programming, but doesn’t know it. To write an unstructured program,
>you need a “goto” statement, which doesn’t even exist in JAVA. I would
love
>to show you what a “spaghetti” program looks like. If you follow the thread
>of execution, it actually looks like a bowl of spaghetti. When the term
"spaghetti"
>was first used, everyone laughed long and loud. Nobody had to explain it
>to us. We all knew that it referred to our own code.
>
>So when we combined Top-Down with Structured, it was like a regime change.
>It literally was a new way of looking at the world. The “case” statement
>was invented to facilitate structured programming. “Goto,” which once had
>been an essential concept, was now an obscene word. Modula-2 was designed
>without it, partially out of arrogance of the inventor (“I won’t have any
>gotos on my record,” or something like that). We all thought that we had
>learned the ultimate programming style, one that would free us from buggy
>code and long development schedules. Today, it’s not the ultimate style.
>It’s just good programming practice.
>
>The next revolution was Object Oriented. It began with a language called
>“Simscript,” which was for writing simulations. Objects are natural in simulation.
>If you want to simulate traffic, for example, you want to have objects called
>“cars.” Again, we had to completely change the way we viewed the world.
Object
>orientation, by nature, is contrary to the functional view. In fact, it
made
>top-down obsolete. With objects, the best way to design is bottom-up: Start
>with the detailed stuff, and work your way up to the more general. So it
>literally turned the old way of thinking on its head.
>
>(C++ is the object-oriented version of C)
>
>At least two languages were inspired directly by Simscript. The ones I know
>are SmallTalk and Eiffel. SmallTalk is the most famous, but Eiffel is still
>going strong and has a loyal following. A new version of Eiffel even works
>with the .NET framework.
>
>One of your respondents pointed out that you can still write non-object
code
>in JAVA. That's true, but it misses the point. When you learn to code in
>JAVA, you learn to think in terms of objects. And that makes you a product
>of the revolution, whether you know it or not.
>
>Well, I’d love to talk all night about this, but it’s time for me to meet
>my girlfriend and go to a movie (two important functions). If you have any
>questions you can write me at Jma26@Bigfoot.com.
>
>- Michael
>
>

Re: C++ vs Java

Hi Mark -

You're absolutely right. I did read the previous message, and I understand
that you were correcting a clumsily stated idea. But it's not the important
point <I>as far as Tricia's question is concerned</I>. My post was intended
to help Tricia, not to criticize you. I apologize for not noticing that your
post was indented under Kent's post, not Tricia's (the indents are pretty
small).

What I was trying to say is that with languages like JAVA, we are given the
<U>opportunity</U> to <B>think</B> in OO terms. Anyone who has witnessed
the development of computer languages will understand how revolutionary that
is.

My point was that a particular language will help to mold the way we think,
and that in turn will help mold how we design computer languages. Languages
are about more than just programming techniques and styles--they're very
much about world-view, and they express our values about programming.

The struggle in programming has always been to find a methodology that maximizes
productivity, quality, and maintainability. When a concept like OO does that
by completely changing what the world looks like, then it doesn't matter
if some people refuse to operate in the new world. They're welcome to their
own view of reality, but others can explore and progress and eventually produce
an even newer world.

You can't learn JAVA without getting at least a glimpse of the OO world.
Such a glimpse was nearly impossible 25 years ago, because few programmers
could even think that way. Simula (not Simscript, as I said earlier) was
around, but its value as a general programming paradigm was understood by
maybe 4 or 5 people.

When we want to understand and compare the nature of computer languages (as
Tricia does), it's important to realize that every programming language was
invented to solve some kind of problem. The nature of that problem and the
paradigm of its solution are the keys to the bigger picture.

Your comments are definitely correct. Please don't take it personally that
I said they miss the point of Tricia's question.

"Markn" <java.@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
><Q>
>One of your respondents pointed out that you can still write non-object
code
>in JAVA. That's true, but it misses the point.
></Q>
>
>No it doesn't miss the point. If you read the previous post you would understand
>why I said this.
>
><Q>
>When you learn to code in
>JAVA, you learn to think in terms of objects. And that makes you a product
>of the revolution, whether you know it or not.
></Q>
>
>Do people really? I wish that were true. Unfortunately, many examples
provided
>for learning Java are not OO (check out MQ Series documentation). Having
>a "main" method, seems to cause most of the problem. The other is that
most
>still must think GUI ("Web App") and relational database ("database driven").
>
>It seems most Java code produced is not OO. Using Java doesn't produce
>OO code. Neither does putting code in objects. People actually have to
>think.
>
>"Michael" <jma26@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Tricia,
>>
>>I've been a programmer for 35 years, and I'm competent in C, C++, COBOL,
>>BASIC, JAVA, PL/1 and others. Here are some things the other people haven't
>>mentioned.
>>
>>As was mentioned, in C and C++ the programmer is responsible for allocating
>>and freeing memory. That memory is usually accessed with a "pointer," a
>variable
>>with a memory address in it. I've heard it said more than once that the
>vast
>>majority of bugs in C and C++ have to do with memory allocation and reference
>>errors. My own experience seems to bear that out. One of your respondents
>>mentioned that JAVA and C# use garbage collection. That means that the
programmer
>>never allocates or frees memory, and never deals with pointers. I've found
>>that with JAVA, I no longer produce some of the horrific bugs that I did
>>with C/C++.
>>
>>Programming languages have evolved over time, trying (IMHO) to do two things.
>>1. - create a language that mimics the way the programmer thinks, and 2.
>>- guide the programmer’s style of design and coding.
>>
>>#1 was the idea behind the first modern (“third generation”) programming
>>language, FORTRAN (“FORmula TRANslation). Statements in FORTRAN are algebraic
>>equations, which mimics the way an engineer thinks. The next major one
was
>>COBOL, which attempted to mimic the way business accountants think: Statements
>>look like English.
>>
>>#2 is actually a significant driving force in the evolution of languages,
>>and often changes the way that programmers think (thus affecting what happens
>>in #1). Researchers have discovered that style of programming has a significant
>>impact on the quality of software. There’ve been at least three revolutions
>>in programming style.
>>
>>The first happened in the 50s, I think (it was before my time), and was
>called
>>“top-down” programming. It meant that you started with the most general
>concept
>>(like a payroll system) and you coded functions at that general level (functions
>>like “produce payroll check”) even before you’ve created the lower level
>>routines (like “calculate deductions” and “print”). This meant you had
to
>>write dummy programs (called “stubs”) for the lower level routines. This
>>is sometimes called “functional” programming because it sees the parts
of
>>the software as a set of functions: “do this function, then do that one.”
>>
>>
>>The second revolution, called “Structured Programming,” hit the software
>>business pretty hard in the early 70s, and we’ve never been the same. It
>>was controversial for a while (because people don’t like to give up old
>habits),
>>but now it’s so common that the name is not even used anymore. Everyone
>practices
>>structured programming, but doesn’t know it. To write an unstructured program,
>>you need a “goto” statement, which doesn’t even exist in JAVA. I would
>love
>>to show you what a “spaghetti” program looks like. If you follow the thread
>>of execution, it actually looks like a bowl of spaghetti. When the term
>"spaghetti"
>>was first used, everyone laughed long and loud. Nobody had to explain it
>>to us. We all knew that it referred to our own code.
>>
>>So when we combined Top-Down with Structured, it was like a regime change.
>>It literally was a new way of looking at the world. The “case” statement
>>was invented to facilitate structured programming. “Goto,” which once had
>>been an essential concept, was now an obscene word. Modula-2 was designed
>>without it, partially out of arrogance of the inventor (“I won’t have any
>>gotos on my record,” or something like that). We all thought that we had
>>learned the ultimate programming style, one that would free us from buggy
>>code and long development schedules. Today, it’s not the ultimate style.
>>It’s just good programming practice.
>>
>>The next revolution was Object Oriented. It began with a language called
>>“Simscript,” which was for writing simulations. Objects are natural in
simulation.
>>If you want to simulate traffic, for example, you want to have objects
called
>>“cars.” Again, we had to completely change the way we viewed the world.
>Object
>>orientation, by nature, is contrary to the functional view. In fact, it
>made
>>top-down obsolete. With objects, the best way to design is bottom-up: Start
>>with the detailed stuff, and work your way up to the more general. So it
>>literally turned the old way of thinking on its head.
>>
>>(C++ is the object-oriented version of C)
>>
>>At least two languages were inspired directly by Simscript. The ones I
know
>>are SmallTalk and Eiffel. SmallTalk is the most famous, but Eiffel is still
>>going strong and has a loyal following. A new version of Eiffel even works
>>with the .NET framework.
>>
>>One of your respondents pointed out that you can still write non-object
>code
>>in JAVA. That's true, but it misses the point. When you learn to code in
>>JAVA, you learn to think in terms of objects. And that makes you a product
>>of the revolution, whether you know it or not.
>>
>>Well, I’d love to talk all night about this, but it’s time for me to meet
>>my girlfriend and go to a movie (two important functions). If you have
any
>>questions you can write me at Jma26@Bigfoot.com.
>>
>>- Michael
>>
>>
>
"MarkN" <java.@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>Java doesn't force you to write OO code at all. I can put all my code in
>the main method (and I have seen it). That is not OO. And just because
>it is in a class doesn't make it OO.
>
>Another important thing about Java is the community. Apache, Sourceforge,
>Javalobby, ... . One other important thing is that it is an open platform.
>
>Some would beg to differ that Java supports true OO (100%). It is more
OO
>than VB Classic.
>
>
>
>"Kent" <kb@essential.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Tricia,
>>
>>I can give you some points about each language that should point you in
>the
>>right direction. Others may have some additional points to make as well